Re: Weird messages from IETF/Google Mailservers (WG: PALS WG Adoption poll draft-schmutzer-pals-ple)

Barry Leiba <> Thu, 01 June 2023 14:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9B0CC14CE52; Thu, 1 Jun 2023 07:47:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.551
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.096, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YBRe5Ulri-vK; Thu, 1 Jun 2023 07:47:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1AADCC14CE4C; Thu, 1 Jun 2023 07:47:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-5147e40bbbbso1430596a12.3; Thu, 01 Jun 2023 07:47:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20221208; t=1685630823; x=1688222823; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=WM1wRC2oTxlA0LF/4Sz3HvQSCVE3t0/lkxPnaXsN+b4=; b=ABmuysx1rjUM7hgtEpC4hdrOuQbrIZxBdgnpV8sRA2mw66Gec09pkLf0MuCnImtbV/ QgZ+gfdXf7+sfFnqdC0JVvtSojinLNgG159pYHhjMg4X2J9POWNsWMYbE07qVEF3thg/ MrhOyRsG74hPAExmvQA8wQh//gYuniEQXBG4C5/heREAON/dsVG2w+/TZSVvSuFMZCTw SnQ76odu8vlm9NxEGwuSZDkrx001YFEIuC2UXcGVCB8OUFIF0KQOuUINpGprrgdijOj4 XX3bE3dUsh9dbO5SAxtqqqvqDnK6f1dGxuRd70ffwJRBVyFGV8A1joh1/KsXjRBYXf3a B4Pw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDxjoV1G8P/wM34YJts8nisF5BZUnKONMAuqfjfq/Ipd6TF0oS3i G8Oqs2ijAgxYwVDpvVKr8o0jX3tO8PiYl3tzzuc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ4LKqBIkFPVgSsKwqdARTrqGpKMVEuqnbnTN7CIX+7lItMApUK2j6iS/mGBTiUHY0/ckO+/vpGKl+a3W5By1tw=
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:c249:0:b0:510:f44c:4b71 with SMTP id y9-20020aa7c249000000b00510f44c4b71mr57541edo.27.1685630823096; Thu, 01 Jun 2023 07:47:03 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <BEZP281MB2008B40D838DDC78B76B4DFA9849A@BEZP281MB2008.DEUP281.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Barry Leiba <>
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2023 10:46:51 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Weird messages from IETF/Google Mailservers (WG: PALS WG Adoption poll draft-schmutzer-pals-ple)
To: Jim Fenton <>
Cc: Toerless Eckert <>,,
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Working Group Chairs <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2023 14:47:08 -0000

But we *are* finishing work to standardize DMARC:
...and there is a huge controversy in the working group about what
normative things to say about this, and whether we should say anything
normative at all.

But this is something different; gmail appears to be seriously
overstepping.  I checked the DMARC record for (TXT record
in, and here it is:

They are publishing a "p=none" policy, which should *not* trigger a
rejection because of failure to authenticate.  Yet gmail is rejecting
it anyway (as if the policy were p=reject).  I will ask my gmail
contact about this.

Barry (chair of the DMARC working group)

On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 10:38 AM Jim Fenton <> wrote:
> On 1 Jun 2023, at 7:12, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> > Please complain with the ART email folks. It is the IETF that standardized all those
> > email "security" mechanisms such DMARC that google is now using to effectively make
> > email unusable for many people (and this is primarily what i heard from outside the IETF).
> IETF did not standardize DMARC: RFC 7489 is an informational specification published via the independent submission track.
> Unfortunately many people and organizations, including some that are mandating the deployment of DMARC and publication of “reject” policies, so not understand the difference between informational and standards-track.
> -Jim